HC nixes pre-arrest bail plea of Canadian NRI in matrimonial dispute
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a person cannot be allowed to take the “justice delivery system” of the “largest democracy of the world” in a casual manner by filing an anticipatory bail plea while “sitting in an armchair in a foreign country” and then refusing to join investigation despite clear judicial directions.
The ruling came as Justice Namit Kumar dismissed the anticipatory bail plea in a matrimonial dispute filed by an accused residing in Canada. The petitioner had approached the court apprehending arrest in connection with an FIR registered for cheating, criminal breach of trust and other offences under Sections 406, 420, 498-A and 506 of the IPC at the Jagraon city police station in Ludhiana district.
Justice Kumar noted that the petitioner had been directed to join the investigation by the Ludhiana Additional Sessions Judge. But he failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of his earlier bail plea. “Needless to observe here that a person sitting in an armchair in a foreign country cannot be allowed to take the ‘justice delivery system’ of the largest democracy of the world in such a casual manner that despite the fact that he has been granted protection by the jurisdictional court below to join the investigation, he chooses not to do so and is again knocking the doors of higher courts for the same relief, without any justifiable and cogent reason for defying the orders of the court below,” Justice Namit Kumar asserted.
Clarifying the legal position, Justice Kumar reiterated that though a person residing outside India might file a plea for pre-arrest bail. But settled proposition of law was that such an applicant must be physically present in India before the final hearing to enable the court to impose and enforce conditions. Expressing strong disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct, Justice Kumar said such a casual approach of seeking anticipatory bail from abroad, without any willingness or readiness to join the investigation, could not be allowed.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Kumar concluded that the right to seek protection of pre-arrest bail could not be exercised by the petitioner, who is living in Canada, in a casual manner to “catch any train at his own pleasure”.
